Wikileaks, Michael Brown's mother, Trump tweets

[silverscreenselect]

Please point out one single instance of a "unisex bathroom law" that was proposed or enacted before the North Carolina legislature and a few other yahoos started this whole controversy.

Every proposed "use the bathroom of your physical gender" law was in response to a "you may use the bathroom of the gender you think you are even if you are wrong" legislation.

Arizona Senate Bill 1045, proposed in 2013, was "was a response to an ordinance Phoenix leaders adopted in February, banning discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents. Phoenix’s law applies to public accommodations such as stores, restaurants and hotels, and could affect public bathroom use in some cases."

The North Carolina law is a 2016 law.

Houston's HERO ordinance was originally approved by the city council in May 2014, two years before North Carolina's law.
Houston's voter overruled the ordinance in November of 2015.

Let me get this straight... anti-discrimination laws designed to protect GLBT's are now "you may use the bathroom of the gender you think you are even if you are wrong" laws.

That logic explains so much about the right wing and why they are held in such high esteem in the gay community.

I guess the Civil Rights Act was another example of activists shoving it in other people's faces.

[Estonut]

That logic explains so much about the right wing and why they are held in such high esteem in the gay community.

You think any one person speaks for the entire right wing? Stereotype much?

[Bob Juch]

Please point out one single instance of a "unisex bathroom law" that was proposed or enacted before the North Carolina legislature and a few other yahoos started this whole controversy.

Every proposed "use the bathroom of your physical gender" law was in response to a "you may use the bathroom of the gender you think you are even if you are wrong" legislation.

Arizona Senate Bill 1045, proposed in 2013, was "was a response to an ordinance Phoenix leaders adopted in February, banning discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents. Phoenix’s law applies to public accommodations such as stores, restaurants and hotels, and could affect public bathroom use in some cases."

The North Carolina law is a 2016 law.

Houston's HERO ordinance was originally approved by the city council in May 2014, two years before North Carolina's law.
Houston's voter overruled the ordinance in November of 2015.

Neither Phoenix's ordinance nor Houston's had anything to do with bathrooms but the right wing tried to make it seem so, just as in North Carolina.

[jarnon]

Neither Phoenix's ordinance nor Houston's had anything to do with bathrooms but the right wing tried to make it seem so, just as in North Carolina.

This isn't a new tactic. In the 1970s, Phyllis Schlafly claimed the Equal Rights Amendment would make single-sex bathrooms illegal.

[silverscreenselect]

That logic explains so much about the right wing and why they are held in such high esteem in the gay community.

You think any one person speaks for the entire right wing? Stereotype much?

It wasn't one person who was responsible for this year's Republican platform that included, among other things, approval for "sexual conversion therapy," in other words, trying to brainwash gay children into being straight.

[Estonut]

I'll write slowly so you might be able to keep up.

Please point out one single instance of a "unisex bathroom law" that was proposed or enacted before the North Carolina legislature and a few other yahoos started this whole controversy.

Every proposed "use the bathroom of your physical gender" law was in response to a "you may use the bathroom of the gender you think you are even if you are wrong" legislation.

Let me get this straight... anti-discrimination laws designed to protect GLBT's are now "you may use the bathroom of the gender you think you are even if you are wrong" laws.

That logic explains so much about the right wing and why they are held in such high esteem in the gay community.

You think any one person (BiT) speaks for the entire right wing? Stereotype much?

Rather than admitting your false conclusion, you came back with this:

It wasn't one person who was responsible for this year's Republican platform that included, among other things, approval for "sexual conversion therapy," in other words, trying to brainwash gay children into being straight.

Here is the 66-page document with which you seem to be so familiar. There is a link there marked "Click here to read through the full platform." A direct link to the document is not parsing properly here.

Which page is it that specifies approval for "sexual conversion therapy?"

[BackInTex]

Neither Phoenix's ordinance nor Houston's had anything to do with bathrooms but the right wing tried to make it seem so, just as in North Carolina.

Wrong as usual. Have you read it? No. I have.

It actually has to do with everything, including restrooms. It is a wide open anything and everything goes ordinance. You actually don't have to be transgender. I could use whatever restroom I wanted based on my sex.

Most conservatives don't have issue with the employment and other aspects of the ordinance, but it was written so broad as to allow anyone treated differently from anyone else in almost any situation to file a grievance.

Here are a few lines....(remember, separate but equal has been struck down by the SC)....

finds that it is necessary, appropriate and the
proper responsibility of government to make discrimination in Public Accommodations
unlawful in the City;

based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age,
familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy ("Protected Characteristics");

Discriminate means to intentionally distinguish, differentiate, separate, or
segregate to the advantage or disadvantage of any person on the basis of a
protected characteristic, except as required by federal or state law or court order

Based on the quotes above, having separate Women and Men restrooms (public accommodation) is a violation because it it intentionally separating (separates/segregates) based on a protected characteristic (sex), just as having separate white/black restrooms.

Most reasonable folks would still use the proper facility, but laws, regulations, and such aren't there for reasonable folks.

[silverscreenselect]

based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age,
familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy ("Protected Characteristics");

Discriminate means to intentionally distinguish, differentiate, separate, or
segregate to the advantage or disadvantage of any person on the basis of a
protected characteristic, except as required by federal or state law or court order

Based on the quotes above, having separate Women and Men restrooms (public accommodation) is a violation because it it intentionally separating (separates/segregates) based on a protected characteristic (sex), just as having separate white/black restrooms.

Most reasonable folks would still use the proper facility, but laws, regulations, and such aren't there for reasonable folks.

As usual, you conveniently misread the wording and eliminated "to the advantage or disadvantage of any person." One of the reasons "separate but equal" was struck down was the inherently unequal status of white and black facilities. And quite frankly paying more attention to the actual logistics of men's and women's restrooms wouldn't be a bad thing, as anyone who has been stuck in a huge line at a women's restroom during intermission at an event can attest (or anyone trying to use the exceedingly unsanitary men's room in a lot of bars).

Further, even by your standards, your argument makes no sense. It would apply to any attempt to ban discrimination based on sex in "public accommodations," and not to the issue of transgendered individuals. The North Carolina law is a specific attempt to stigmatize transgendered people on the ridiculous pretext of preventing a swarm of Corporal Klingers from invading women's restrooms.

[SportsFan68]

. . .

What Bernie Sanders followers don't realize is that he did far better under the "rigged" system than he would have under any other set of nominating rules. Much of the reason that he was so close was his victories in caucus states that reward people who have the time to show up in one place and spend hours going through the process. That tends to overly reward those with a more activist, younger voter base. If all the caucus states had instead held primaries, Bernie would have lost by a considerably larger margin. Bernie's supporters then tried to stack the deck at district and state nominating conventions, essentially changing the results of the primaries (that's also what Ted Cruz supporters tried to do). If that's not trying to "rig" the system, I don't know what is. Bernie lost because he failed to make his case to a sufficient number of Democratic voters, especially black and Hispanic Democratic voters.

It is true about Bernie supporters doing their best to stack the deck at county and state conventions here in Colorado.

I disagree with this, for Colorado anyway: "If all the caucus states had instead held primaries, Bernie would have lost by a considerably larger margin." All of my colleagues in party leadership positions were deluged with contacts, mostly by phone, about lack of inclusiveness, and they demanded that we return to a Presidential primary system. We almost had it, too. The state legislature couldn't decide how to treat unaffiliated voters.

[flockofseagulls104]

And just when you thought this election season couldn't get any crazier, this weekend's news dump also gave us the following gem:

Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and pontificating flaming a-hole David Duke announced his candidacy for the open U.S. Senate seat in his home state of Louisiana. Duke has made it no secret that he lurves demagoguing bag of candy corn Donald Trump, although Trump himself disavowed Duke earlier this year. No word yet on what kind of impact Duke will have on either the U.S. Senate race or the presidential election, but the GOP almost certainly would have been happier if Duke was not a part of the process at a time when the GOP leaders are attempting to move away from the nativism and the racist rhetoric.

Just to update the David Duke saga. He came in 7th in the Louisiana Senate race with about 3%. But he is still valuable to democrats like the good Pastor and SSS.